I’ve came across a pretty cool site in the last couple weeks — an open source intelligent design research database — or ResearchID.org wiki for short. It’s goal is to make ID research easy to access and provide a host of information to researchers here in America and internationally. 
As the manager Joseph Campana describes the project:
Imagine a website where…
* … any student or professional, in any field of study, could gain instant access to Intelligent Design research associated with their discipline.
* … every research project related to Intelligent Design is summarized and arranged into highly usable research articles that can be taken straight to the lab or library for research application.
* … all the research resources are set up in a wiki, where anyone interested could collaborate and contribute.
That is exactly what we are doing at ResearchID.org. ResearchID.org is a wiki knowledgebase compiling information and knowledge related to Intelligent Design, written by you!
The wiki is still in the beginning stages, as the official opening day is June 22, 2006. However, if you are at all interested in intelligent design do sign up to contribute.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Powered by WordPress.
25 queries. 0.484 seconds
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Finally! A website totally dedicated to ID research. Please allow me to be the first the contribute solid evidence of ID. Oh right, there isn’t any. Well, despite that, the Bible said it, I believe it and that settles it. Isn’t that a testible hypothesis? Okay, maybe not, but I am going to continue to cling on to my blind unsupported faith even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is science isn’t it? It is if you live in Kansas. By the way, the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, and pink elephants fly. Good luck woth your website. I can’t wait to eviscerate your drivel.
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:56 am
micheal,
Here’s some solid evidence for design: a living cell. Darwinism is such a complete failure at trying to explain how the first living cell came to exist that it doesn’t even attempt to do it. What a cop out. At least in this case it is honest about its utter incapacity to explain the scientific evidence.
March 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 am
I’ve scanned the website, but see precious little evidence of positive research for Intelligent Design. As usual, most of it is just raising specious questions about evolution.
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:57 pm
“Here’s some solid evidence for design: a living cell.”
Now that’s some top-notch research! Scientist looks into a microscope at a cell: “Gee whiz, that’s so complex. I mean, like soooooo complex! Look at all those things and stuff. I don’t think evolution could have done all this! In Jesus’ name, amen.”
We should see this published in Nature soon.
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I looked at the site. I didn’t see nay evidence for design. All I see are attacks on naturalistic explanations. “Irreducible complexity”, “specified complexity”, etc. are jsut negative arguments against evolution. I’d like to see some real evidence of actual “design events”. maybe someone has videotape of a “design event” in progress. All I’m asking them to do is prove a miracle. Is that too much - for someone who is claiming miracles?
Yes, imagine an Intelligent design research database. That’s the only place ID research will ever exist, in your imagination.
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I looked at the ID Wiki. It’s clearly bogus, since it doesn’t bother to mention the one ID conjecture that has some actual data: Multiple Designers Theory. The data and research program are here.
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Endoplasmic messenger:
“Here’s some solid evidence for design: a living cell. Darwinism is such a complete failure at trying to explain how the first living cell came to exist that it doesn’t even attempt to do it. What a cop out.”
Here is the ID “scientific” explanation: The first cell happened by magic!
March 23rd, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Darwinism is such a complete failure at trying to explain how the first living cell came to exist that it doesn’t even attempt to do it.
Well…yeah, you’re technically right. Criticizing evolutionary theory for not explaining the origin of the first cells (abiogenesis) makes as much sense as criticizing a baseball player for not throwing enough touchdown passes.
Whatever holes exist in the evidence for evolutionary theory, it is still superior to crea…intelligent design, which has no evidence.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Typical of IDers, state something negative about evolution without doing any research on the subject, in this case the origin of life. There is plenty of research conducted on the origin of life and scientists have come to understand a great deal about how klife started. Check out the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life web site. They publish a journal “Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres”. The web site also has book reviews.
Speaking of books, there are several very good textbooks on Astrobiology that deal with the origin of life. Perhaps IDers should go to the library and see what science really says about the origin and evolution of life rather than rehashing the same old creationist ideas.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Actually, there ARE genuine theories on how life began. You don’t need to turn to made-up “facts” in order to comfort yourself. If you need to cling to made up archaic “thoughts,” that’s your perogative, but by no means push your beliefs on others. Being ignorant is one thing, trying to force the rest of the world to embrace your ignorance is quite another.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Well, from the all the comments so far, it would appear your enemies take more interest in this
endeavor than supporters. The shame I see in these responses is the reality of how all sides
in a controversy cannot see how their presuppositions affect their commitments to the outcome.
Both claim to preserve “science” without seeing how they’ve crossed the line from observable
phenomenon to speculative conclusions. Both are religious to the core. But I’d say the
Naturalistic Evolutionist is showing his own audacity and ignorance of this fact by being
challenged by those who believe in Intelligent Design. That’s why I enjoy this controversy. I
am hoping to see the underdog really expose naturalistic arrogance and reductionism, even if he
does not have the support of the establishment. The comments so far don’t elicit respect for
the position these commenters hold.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
I agree with you, Mark. Most of the comments certainly don’t elicit any respect for the commenters’ positions.
I was wondering if they realized how silly they are acting.
March 25th, 2006 at 12:20 am
And they don’t deserve any respect, based on content.
Listen folks, there are certain criteria required to be ‘scientific research’ – and IDiots keep trying to change the definition of science to get there god, erm, supernatural, erm designer in there.
Testable predictions, falsifiability, an actual method the designer used – all of these would be nice. “Evolution” hasn’t explained XXXX [yet] isn’t research for ID, guys. Sorry. Also, you might not want to conflate evolution and abiogenesis.
Maybe a database of misinformed OP ED peaces written by angry red state churchgoers would be better. ID has a production line for those?
March 25th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
These requirements would be nice for those who believe in Natural Selection in the question of origins to provide as well. The problem I see for IDers is not that they really do stand on the same footing as the Darwinist, but that those committed to Naturalism cannot as easily see where their logically deduced inferences cross the line from scientific materialism methodology into philosophical naturalism as well as someone who understands how their religious beliefs influence how they form their inferences.
For example, I found enlightening a statement from a supporter of Evolution. He could not understand how Creationists could make a distinction between micro-evolutionary changes (scientifically observable) and macro-evolution (the origins inference). The naturalist’s commitment to the belief that nature is all there is would not lend itself to easily see that they have logically deduced something that cannot be observed from something that can; and that they have not proven anything.
If we truly were maintaining scientific objectivity in the classroom (and research institution!), both sides would see where legitimate science has stopped and the unprovable, unfalsifiable, and untestable conclusions begin.
And again, Rich’s swipe at IDers as IDiots doesn’t elicit respect.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Hey guys– we appreciate you all weighing in, but it seems most of you sort of missed what the point of the ResearchID.org website was. It is not an apologetic website for ID, and the goal is not to catalogue the evidence for design for a waiting audience (you). The goal is to facilitate ID research by ‘exploring hypothetical and empirical research possibilities for Intelligent Design’, and though the website is just beginning now, I think it has great potential in that regard.
Have a look at the mission page, and scroll down to “ResearchID is not” where most of your objections are addressed.
March 25th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
I can provide testable predictions, falsifiability and method for evolution, no problem.
Care to go match me point by point?
March 26th, 2006 at 8:49 am
ID is the greatest hoax of the 21st Century. As a scientific concept it was falsified over two hundred years ago and is only now being revived as a political wedge to advance hard right causes.
Exclaiming that “a cell” is evidence for intelligent design, or pronouncements that “Darwinianism fails” in some way to “explain” something is bad science and worse logic.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:51 am
PS: in re “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God”, it may or may not interest you to know that George Washington was an atheist. Here, as many do, “God” is a euphamism for blind chance.
March 26th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Maezeppa, I’m not sure what the quote in our sidebar has to do with evolution or the intelligent design evolution debate. And I’m surprised you think George Washington was an atheist. Washington was probably not an orthodox Christian, but seems to have believed in Providence or God (not chance).
March 26th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
…so, there’s currently no research supporting Intelligent Design? That’s what I thought.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Palidor-– you really don’t see why that’s a non sequitor?
March 30th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
It’s not a non-sequitur. In a discussion of “exploring hypothetical and empirical research possibilities”, I would expect to see enough discussion of fundamental “Intelligent Design” principles that could at least be gleaned by context, ergo the cataloging of evidence for ID that you said “ResearchID” is not for. Science is an iterative process. And ID supporters do plan on making a lame genuflect towards playing by the rules of science, right? ….right?
I don’t see how the inevitable links to Bill Dembski’s blog and the Discovery Institute home page bashing evolution count as “exploring hypothetical and empirical research possibilities”. There’s more to ID than bashing evolution…right? After all, one of your main men, Michael Behe, has publicly stated that ID is intended to supplement evolution, not supplant it.
I would have no problem with ID if it were only an honest-to-goodness research effort. My problem with ID lies in the establishment of it as a science by fiat, not by the scientific method, by attempting to teach it in high schools and whining about why the mean ol’ “Liberal Secular Atheistic Darwinist Conspiracy” won’t just go ahead and accept it as a credible scientific theory, already. Hell, most ID supporters can’t even agree on what ID is. They do agree on one thing, however: Evolution Sucks. (Even though they also can’t agree on what exactly evolution is. If I hear one more evolution critique which says anything about the Big Bang, I’m going to hurt somebody.) You want to teach something in schools without knowing what it is?
March 31st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
To the best of my knowledge, no one is doing or planning any research that would actually support ID (as opposed to attacking evolution), so the wiki administrators shouldn’t have to sweat too hard. I see they have a section on “Law” though, with only one entry. If I offered to construct a wiki page entitled “Kitzmiller v. Dover: the butt-kicking of ID”, do you think they would accept it?
April 16th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I to have imagined an ID research database — in fact I just stood up an Oracle database that probably looks just like it. Of course when you first stand up a database — IT’S EMPTY.
OK, I admit to a cheap shot, but it was too tempting. I see this discussion doing exactly what every ID-Evolution discussion has done. First something supporting ID is declared, but left unsupported. When questioned — attacks on Evolution start. The attacks start with actual biology and then quickly branch into astrophysics (big bang), paleontology (fossil record), climatology (Floods) . . ..
It amazes me and saddens me. You have a set of biology theories and taken by themselves maybe aren’t perfect. But in many other branches of science there is supporting evidence. Just the sheer weight of evidence should be enough to convince you that attacking evolution is an argument you cannot win without compelling scientific evidence in support of ID. That alone should tell you to get off the stage of public opinion and go back to the lab and make your case. Refusing to do that means that you can whine, cry, complain all you want but you will never be taken seriously as a scientific theory. It doesn’t matter how many lawsuits you bring, how many times you lie to a school board–you will be lumped in with Astrology, Alchemy, Phrenology, and all the other psuedo-sciences. So quick campaigning and get in the lab!
Ted
April 20th, 2006 at 1:12 am
“Imagine an Intelligent Design Reserach Database”? This is difficult to do except as a flight of fancy - as there is no such thing as real research being done on the Intelligent Design superstition. The whole ID movement is based and and supported by nothing other than argumentation, polemics, propaganda (and politics). It does no research, no experimentation - instead relying on “critques” of the research and trheorization of legitimate scientists. If you want a base understanding of the age-old methods by which this particualr version of Flat-Earthism is promulgated and propped up, read a little on MEDEIVAL SCHOLASTICISM and you will get sokme useful understanding of how the ID position is worked out, maintained, promoted. Try this link for a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism